Voting Privacy

"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt." Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817

Top News

EPIC Files Suit to Block Census Citizenship Question: EPIC has filed a lawsuit to block the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. EPIC charged that the Census Bureau failed to complete multiple Privacy Impact Assessments, as required by law. The Bureau abruptly added the citizenship question earlier this year but did not assess the privacy impact on census respondents, who are legally obligated to answer all questions. As EPIC's lawsuit reveals, the Bureau recently indicated—for the first time—that personal data provided to the Census Bureau could be used "for criminal law enforcement activities." The Bureau's admission raises new questions about whether citizenship information will be transmitted to the Department of Justice. EPIC has filednumeroussuccessfullawsuitsseeking to enforce federal agencies' obligation to publish Privacy Impact Assessments. Earlier this year, the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity was shut down after EPIC filed a lawsuit to block the collection of state voter data and challenging the Commission's failure to complete a Privacy Impact Assessment. (Nov. 20, 2018)

In Privacy Victory, ICE Backs Down from Voter Data Demand: ICE has reversed position and is no longer seeking the immediate release of over 18 million voting records from North Carolina. Citing administrative difficulties and the unprecedented scope of the subpoena, ICE agreed to limit its demand to preserve voter privacy and will allow state officials to respond after the midterm elections in January 2019. The demand still poses substantial privacy risks and departs from testimony by Homeland Security Secretary Kristjen Nielsen, who told Congress that DHS would not make such requests. EPIC previously highlighted these problems and explained that the data demand violates DHS policy. EPIC has long fought to ensure voter privacy and recently forced the defunct Presidential Election Commission to delete millions of state voter records unlawfully obtained. (Sep. 7, 2018)

Immigration and Customs Enforcement has demanded that North Carolina provide over 18 million voter records from the past eight years. The subpoena is outside the Department of Homeland Security authority and goes against testimony by DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, who told Congress this year that DHS’s role is limited to voluntary requests for assistance from the states. Nielsen also wrote, in records obtained through an EPIC FOIA request, that associating the DHS with voter data collection “could disrupt critical efforts” to work with state officials on election cybersecurity. EPIC has long fought to ensure voter privacy and recently forced the defunct Presidential Election Commission to delete millions of state voter records unlawfully obtained.

The National Academies of Sciences has released a report "Securing the Vote: Protecting American Democracy," highlighting vulnerabilities in current voting technology. EPIC Advisory Board member Ronald Rivest served on the expert committee. The Academies report includes many recommendations "designed to harden our election infrastructure and safeguard its integrity and credibility," concerning voter registration, ballot design, voting technology, system certification, cybersecurity, online voting, and auditing. The Academies report recommends end-to-end verifiable systems to ensure that votes have been counted as intended. These systems use cryptographic methods developed by EPIC Advisory Board member David Chaum. In 2016, EPIC published "The Secret Ballot at Risk: Recommendations for Protecting Democracy," highlighting the importance of the secret ballot for American democracy. The Academies report noted that new strategies for election security "must still preserve the secret ballot."

A federal court in Washington, DC has ruled that the Presidential Election Commission must release a large volume of records detailing its activities from last year. The ruling, in a case brought by Maine Secretary of State and EPIC Champion of Freedom Matthew Dunlap, requires the Commission to disclose all "relevant documents that any of the former commissioners generated or received." After the court ordered the Commission to release the same records in December, the President abruptly disbanded the Commission. EPIC brought the lead case against the Commission, forcing it to suspend the collection of voter data, discontinue the use of an unsafe computer server, and delete the voter information that was unlawfully obtained. EPIC is continuing to pursue its case on appeal and will ask the Supreme Court to grant review.

EPIC has obtained records under the Freedom of Information Act showing that the Department of Homeland Security communicated frequently with the Presidential Election Commission after EPIC filed a lawsuit to block the Commission's efforts to obtain state voter data. The documents show that DHS officials had numerous communications with Commission staff beginning in June 2017. The records obtained by EPIC also reveal that Kirstjen Nielsen, now the DHS Secretary, worried that the Commission's voter data grab would "disrupt critical efforts DHS is leading to work with state and local officials" on election cybersecurity. After EPIC brought suit in July, the Commission suspended the data collection program, discontinued the use of an unsafe computer server, and deleted voter information that was illegally obtained. The Commission was ultimately shut down in January 2018.

In advance of a hearing on "Program Integrity for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program," EPIC has sent a statement to the House Oversight Committee. A provision of the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 would establish a federal database of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program recipients for the purpose of denying food assistance. The SNAP program provides assistance to low-income households and is administered by the states. However, Section 4001 would create a federal database with personal data, such as social security numbers, employment status, and income amounts, with the aim of denying food assistance. EPIC warned that if Congress decides to create this federal database, then the Department of Agriculture will be subject to Privacy Act obligations, including potential liability for the data breaches that may result. Last year, EPIC successfully challenged the efforts of a federal commission to establish a national voter database, noting that voting is a state function.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to void an earlier ruling in EPIC's case to halt the collection of state voter data by the Presidential Election Commission. Although the Commission was disbanded in January, last year's decision by a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit remains on the books. The panel wrongly held that EPIC, a privacy and open government organization, did not have standing to challenge the Commission's failure to conduct and publish a privacy impact assessment required by law. EPIC asked the full D.C. Circuit to take the rare step of revisiting the panel's decision, but the court declined. EPIC's lawsuit previously led the Commission to suspend the collection of voter data, discontinue the use of an unsafe computer server, delete the voter information that was unlawfully obtained. Many states and over 150 members of Congress opposed the Commission's efforts to collect state voter data. EPIC will continue to pursue the case, which is eligible for appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case is EPIC v. Commission, No. 17-1320 (D.D.C.) & 17-5171 (D.C. Cir.).

EPIC joined Consumer Watchdog and a coalition of consumer organizations to urge Facebook to cease all campaign contributions and electioneering activity. The groups also recommended that Facebook retain Jimmy Carter and the Carter Center to audit Facebook's use of personal information for election advertisements. Last week, EPIC and a coalition of consumer groups called on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Facebook. EPIC has also urged the Federal Election Commission to provide transparency for online political ads. EPIC is fully engaged in protecting the integrity of elections with its Project on Democracy and Cybersecurity.

At a Senate hearing today, DHS Secretary Kristjen Nielsen stated that DHS would not undertake a new investigation of voter fraud. EPIC submitted a statement in advance of the hearing, asking Senators to seek assurances that DHS would not pursue the work of the recently disbanded Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, as former Vice Chair Kris Kobach had suggested. In response to a question from Senator Kamala Harris, Nielsen answered that Kobach does not have any role at DHS. Although Nielsen stated that DHS would not pursue any new work, she indicated that the agency would continue to work with states pursuing voter fraud investigations. EPIC recently filed a FOIA lawsuit against DHS seeking communications with the Commission regarding the transfer of personal voter data. The Commission, facing a lawsuit by EPIC, was terminated earlier this month. EPIC's lawsuit led the Commission last year to suspend the collection of voter data.

EPIC sent a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee in advance of a DHS Oversight Hearing, to seek assurances that "the DHS will not continue the activities of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity." After the Commission was disbanded in the wake of EPIC’s lawsuit, the former Vice Chair told reporters that he intended to continue the work of the Commission at the DHS. But EPIC told the Senate committee that the Commission has no authority to transfer the voter data and warned that the DHS would be subject to federal lawsuits if it assembled a database of voter information. EPIC also urged the Senate to confirm that the personal data provided by DACA applicants will not be misused by DHS, and that DHS biometric programs will not be expanded until transparency obligations are fulfilled and privacy safeguards are established. The EPIC letter follows a statement last week from civil rights and government oversight organizations to the DHS Secretary, seeking assurance that there will be no transfer or collection of state voter data.

EPIC has asked the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to void last month's ruling in which the Court refused to order the Presidential Election Commission to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment. The Commission, which unlawfully sought to collect state voter data on hundreds of millions of Americans, was disbanded last week by President Trump. The Commission's sudden demise unfairly prevents EPIC from appealing the Court's legal reasoning because there is no "live" dispute left for a higher court to consider. EPIC's lawsuit led the Commission to suspend the collection of voter data last year, discontinue the use of an unsafe computer server, and delete voter information that was unlawfully obtained. EPIC's case against the Commission is EPIC v. Commission, No. 17-1320 (D.D.C.) & 17-5171 (D.C. Cir.). EPIC filed a separate lawsuit on Monday for communications between the Department of Homeland Security and the Commission regarding the transfer of personal voter data.

EPIC has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security for communications between the agency and the Presidential Commission on Elections regarding the transfer of personal voter data. EPIC filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the DHS after the Commission tried to collect records from federal agencies to match against state voter records, but the agency failed to respond to EPIC's request. Last year, EPIC filed a lawsuit against the Commission that led to the suspension of the collection of voter data. EPIC v. Commission is still pending in federal court. EPIC filed the recent suit after President Trump said he asked DHS "to determine the next course of action" after he dissolved the Commission.

EPIC and ten civil rights and government oversight organizations have sent a letter to DHS Secretary Nielsen, urging her not to accept any personal data from the now defunct Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. The groups explained that the Commission lacks legal authority to transfer personal data to the Commission. The groups also warned that the DHS would be subject to numerous federal laws if it were to acquire state voter data. EPIC and the organizations brought several lawsuits against the Commission. EPIC's lawsuit led the Commission to suspend the collection of voter data in July 2017. President trump disbanded the Commission on January 3, 2018. However, former Vice Chair Kris Kobach told reporters that he intends to resume the work of the Commission at the Department of Homeland Security.

The Presidential Election Commission, which unlawfully sought to collect state voter data on hundreds of millions of Americans, was disbanded Wednesday by President Trump. The Commission had faced an ongoing lawsuit by EPIC over its failure to conduct and publish a Privacy Impact Assessment before collecting personal data, as required by law. EPIC’s lawsuit led the Commission to suspend the collection of voter data last year, discontinue the use of an unsafe computer server, and delete voter information that was unlawfully obtained. Many states and over 150 members of Congress opposed the Commission’s efforts to collect state voter data. In a statement, the President said that he had asked the Department of Homeland Security “to determine next courses of action.” EPIC has a pending Freedom of Information Act request to the DHS for records concerning the federal government’s collection of personal data on voters. EPIC’s case against the Commission, which remains open, is EPIC v. Commission, No. 17-1320 (D.D.C.) & 17-5171 (D.C. Cir.).

EPIC has sent a statement to the House Judiciary Committee ahead of Wednesday's DOJ Oversight hearing. EPIC urged the Committee to question Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein about the FBI's ability to respond to future cyberattacks concerning the 2018 elections. A recent Associated Press investigation found that the FBI, the lead agency for cyber response, did not notify U.S. officials that their email accounts were compromised during the 2016 election. According to documents obtained by EPIC, the FBI is to notify victims of cyberattacks "even when it may interfere with another investigation or (intelligence) operation." EPIC obtained the FBI's Victim Notification Procedures through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, EPIC v. FBI, filed earlier this year. EPIC is currently pursuing several related FOIA cases about Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election, including EPIC v. ODNI (Russian hacking), EPIC v. IRS (Release of Trump Tax Returns), and EPIC v. DHS (election cybersecurity).

The Presidential Election Commission is ignoring inquiries from state election officials about the transfer of sensitive voter data sought by the Commission, according to the New Hampshire Union-Leader. The Commission previously promised—in a filing from an EPIC lawsuit—that it would tell states how to “securely” submit voter data. But New Hampshire election officials say they have been unable to reach the Commission or obtain instructions for over a month. Other posts at the Commission website suggests the agency is no longer responding to email. EPIC filed suit in July to halt the Commission’s collection of state voter data and to compel the Commission to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment required by law. EPIC’s initial filing led the Commission to suspend the collection of voter data, discontinue the use of an unsafe computer server, and delete the voter information that was unlawfully obtained. Many states and over 150 members of Congress have opposed the Commission’s efforts to collect state voter data. EPIC’s case is EPIC v. Commission, No. 17-1320 (D.D.C.) & 17-5171 (D.C. Cir.).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit hears arguments today in EPIC’s case against the Presidential Election Commission concerning the unlawful collection of state voter data. Live audio of the arguments will be streamed from this link beginning at 9:30 a.m. ET. EPIC filed suit to halt the Commission’s collection of state voter data and to compel the Commission to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment required by law. EPIC’s initial filing led the Commission to suspend the collection of voter data, discontinue the use of an unsafe computer server, and delete the state voter data that was unlawfully obtained. Many states have opposed the Commission’s efforts to obtain state voter data. More than 150 members of Congress have urged the Commission to end the collection of voter data. The Government Accountability Office has opened an investigation to determine whether the Commission has engaged in unlawful action. And one Member of the Commission recently filed suit against the Commission. EPIC’s case is EPIC v. Commission, No. 17-1320 (D.D.C.) & 17-5171 (D.C. Cir.).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear arguments next week in EPIC’s case against the Presidential Election Commission concerning the unlawful collection of state voter data. EPIC filed suit to halt the Commission’s collection of state voter data and to compel the Commission to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment required by law. EPIC’s initial filing led the Commission to suspend the collection of voter data, discontinue the use of an unsafe computer server, and delete the state voter data that was unlawfully obtained. Many states have opposed the Commission’s efforts to obtain state voter data. More than 150 members of Congress have urged the Commission to end the collection of voter data. The Government Accountability Office has opened an investigation to determine whether the Commission has engaged in unlawful action. And one Member of the Commission recently filed suit against the Commission. Arguments in EPIC v. Commission are set for next Tuesday, November 21 at 9:30 a.m. and will be streamed live through the D.C. Circuit’s website.

The Government Accountability Office announced this week that it will conduct an investigation into the activities of the Presidential Election Commission. The decision follows a letter by three senators urging the GAO to launch a probe and warning that the Commission’s lack of transparency will “unnecessarily diminish confidence in our democratic process.” Among the issues raised in the letter from the Senators are: “The steps the PACEI has taken to protect any voter information that is has collected” and “The steps the PACEI took to adhere to regulations governing its activity.” EPIC sued the Commission in July for failing to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment prior to establishing a database of personal voter data. Last week, EPIC urged Congress and the General Services Administration to block the Commission from collecting voter information. EPIC's case is EPIC v. Commission, No. 17-1320 (D.D.C.), and the related appeal is EPIC v. Commission, No. 17-5171 (D.C. Cir.). The argument before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled for November 21, 2017.

In a letter to a Senate oversight committee, EPIC urged Congress and the incoming Administrator of the General Services Administration to block the Presidential Election Commission from collecting state voter data. As EPIC recently explained in a case before a federal judge in Washington, DC, the Commission is part of the GSA and must comply with that agency’s requirement to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment prior to the collection of personal data. In the letter to the Senate Committee, EPIC wrote that "the very last thing that the Senate Committee or the incoming GSA Administrator should tolerate is a federal entity that seeks to avoid legal obligations to protect the privacy of Americans." The Commission was previously forced to suspend the collection of voter data in response to EPIC's lawsuit, but it later resumed that process. EPIC's case is EPIC v. Commission, No. 17-1320 (D.D.C.), and the related appeal is EPIC v. Commission, No. 17-5171 (D.C. Cir.). The argument before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled for November 21, 2017.

The Presidential Election Commission is coming under increasing scrutiny from lawmakers and even its own members. On Tuesday, Commissioner Matthew Dunlap charged that the Commission had given him "utterly no information" about the Commission's activities. Dunlap involved the public records statute to demand documents about the Commission he sits on. Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are also demanding records from the Department of Justice about the Department's possibly unlawful coordination with the Commission. Questions have also been raised about the Commission's hiring practices. The Commission was previously forced to suspend the collection of voter data in response to EPIC's lawsuit, but it recently resumed that process. EPIC has urged state election officials not to release any voter information until the Commission conducts a Privacy Impact Assessment. EPIC's case is EPIC v. Commission, No. 17-1320 (D.D.C.), and the related appeal is EPIC v. Commission, No. 17-5171 (D.C. Cir.). The argument before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled for November 21, 2017.

A federal court has ruled that a New York state ban on the posting of "ballot selfies" is constitutional. "New York has a compelling interest in preventing vote buying and voter coercion," the court wrote. "The State's interest in the integrity of its elections is paramount." Ballot selfies allow campaigns, employers, unions, and others to find out how an individual voted. But as EPIC explained in "The Secret Ballot At Risk: Recommendations for Protecting Democracy," the secret ballot—the inability to link particular voters to particular votes—is a cornerstone of modern democracies. The secret ballot reduces the threat of coercion, vote buying and selling, and tampering. EPIC has a long history of working to protect voter privacy and election integrity. In a 2010 Supreme Court case, EPIC argued that disregard for voter privacy may unconstitutionally burden the right to vote.

The Presidential Election Commission is seeking public comments in advance of the Commission's September 12 meeting. EPIC encourages commenters to tell the Commission to end the collection of state voter data. "The Commission's actions have placed the privacy of voters at risk and undermined confidence in the integrity of voting in the United State," said EPIC. As EPIC has explained, the Commission failed to complete a required Privacy Impact Assessment and is violating the constitutional right to information privacy. The Commission was forced to suspend the data collection plan in response to EPIC's lawsuit, but it recently resumed activities. EPIC, and many other organizations, continue to contest the legality of the Commission's actions. Public comments, which are due by Friday, September 8 at 5 p.m., may be submitted at this link.

A federal judge in Washington, DC expressed disbelief this week at the Presidential Election Commission’s failure to disclose documents from the July 19 inaugural public meeting. The Commission failed to make available to the public the meeting agenda and a 381-page “voter fraud” report prepared by a special interest group that was circulated privately to Commission members. Speaking at a court hearing, the federal judge overseeing the case criticized the Commission for failing “to live up to the government’s representations," about transparency. The Commission is attempting to assemble a nationwide database of voter data over the objections of state election officials. But earlier this summer, the Commission suspended collection of voter data in response to a lawsuit brought by EPIC. EPIC’s case, which calls for the disclosure of a Privacy Impact Assessment prior to the collection, is now on appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

EPIC has appealed a federal district court ruling that allowed the Presidential Election Commission to move forward with a controversial plan to gather state voter data in a White House database. EPIC told the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that the Commission was obligated to undertake a Privacy Impact Assessment before amassing voters’ personal information. EPIC's case, which led the Commission to suspend the collection of voter data in July, after EPIC's lawsuit revealed agency incompetence, is before the D.C. Circuit on an expedited basis. The case is EPIC v. Commission, No. 17-5171 (D.C. Cir. filed July 27, 2017).

EPIC has sent an Advisory to state election officials, urging opposition to the renewed request for state voter data. The EPIC Advisory follows a letter from the Presidential Election Commission to state election officials. Following EPIC’s lawsuit, seeking a temporary restraining order, the Commission suspended collection of the data. The court ruled on the TRO motion, which EPIC has now appealed. The recent letter falsely claims that the Commission is only seeking “publicly available information.” In fact, the Commission’s June 28 letter called for the release of social security numbers, criminal records, military statuses, and other personal information protected by state laws. California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, and many state election officials, have reaffirmed their opposition to the Commission's effort to gather state voter data.

EPIC has appealed the decision of a federal district court which declined to block the collection of sensitive voter data by the Presidential Election Commission. EPIC had argued that the Commission failed to complete a Privacy Impact Assessment before collecting voter data and violated the constitutional right to information privacy. Though the district court agreed that EPIC had standing to bring the lawsuit, the court concluded that it couldn't halt the data collection because, according to the court's opinion, the Commission is exempt from the obligation to undertake a privacy assessment. EPIC's case, which led the Commission to suspend the collection of voter data two weeks ago, will now be reviewed on an expedited basis by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. "Absent expedited review," EPIC warned, "the Commission will be allowed to systematically amass the sensitive, personal information of the nation's voters without establishing any procedures to protect voter privacy or the security and integrity of the data." The case is EPIC v. Commission, No. 17-1320 (D.D.C. filed July 3, 2017).

A federal district court in Washington, DC has denied EPIC’s motion for an injunction against the Presidential Election Commission and declined to block the Commission’s nationwide collection of voter data. As EPIC told the court last week, the Commission failed to undertake and publish a Privacy Impact Assessment before collecting voter data and violated the constitutional right to information privacy. The court agreed that EPIC had “standing” to bring the case because the Commission had “an obligation to disclose information” and because the Commission’s actions “required [EPIC] to expend resources” in order to obtain a Privacy Impact Assessment. But the court concluded that it could not halt the Commission’s plan to aggregate millions of voter records because the Commission is exempt from statutes that govern the conduct of federal “agencies.” The court noted, however, that “this determination may need to be revisited” at a later time. The court also warned the Commission must “strictly abide” by promises to only collect information that is “already publicly available” and to “de-identif[y]” voter data “to the extent it is made public.” EPIC intends to press forward with the lawsuit, which led the Commission to suspend the collection of voter data two weeks ago. The case is EPIC v. Commission, No. 17-1320 (D.D.C. filed July 3, 2017). [Press Release]

The Texas NAACP and the League of Women Voters of Texas have filed suit against state election officials to prevent the transfer of personal voter data to the Presidential Election Commission. "The information sought by the Commission is not widely available in Texas, but instead may be released only under certain circumstances and conditions imposed by Texas's voting laws," the complaint reads. The suit notes that the state's disclosure of election records to the Commission, "even if cabined to information generally available to candidates or other organizations who are entitled to request voter information under Texas law, would undermine, and run afoul of, the State's carefully-crafted regulation of the use of voter data." The Texas case joins at least two other lawsuits—one in Florida and one in New Hampshire—seeking to block state officials from providing voter data to the Election Commission. In Washington DC, EPIC has filed suit against the Commission and is urging a federal court to issue a preliminary injunction. The Commission suspended the collection of personal voter data last week in response to EPIC's lawsuit. The Court is expected to rule on EPIC's motion shortly. The case is EPIC v. Commission, No. 17-1320 (D.D.C. filed July 3, 2017).

A group of more than 70 U.S. Representatives sent a letter to the Presidential Election Commission on Tuesday urging the Commission to "immediately" withdraw a nationwide request for state voter data. "The federal government has an obligation to protect the personally identifiable information of the American people," the letter reads. "We believe your June 28 request to the States would do the opposite by ignoring the critical need for robust security protocols when transmitting and storing sensitive personally identifiable information and by centralizing it in one place." As the letter notes, the Commission suspended the collection of personal voter data last week in response to EPIC's lawsuit. EPIC has asked a federal court in Washington, DC to issue an injunction against the Commission and indefinitely block the transfer of election records. The case is EPIC v. Commission, No. 17-1320 (D.D.C. filed July 3, 2017).

In a brief filed this afternoon in Washington, DC, EPIC urged a federal court to issue a temporary restraining order and prevent the collection of state voter records by the Presidential Election Commission. Calling the Commission’s plans to “collect the nation’s voting records” “outside of the privacy laws” that protect personal data “alarming and absurd,” EPIC asked the Court to block this "ill-conceived, poorly executed, and unlawful plan.” EPIC warned that the Commission has “already revealed personally identifiable information” from those who have expressed opposition to the plan. In the original motion, EPIC argued that the Commission had failed to undertake and publish a Privacy Impact Assessment, failed to issue a Federal Advisory Committee Act notice, and violated the constitutional right to information privacy. The Commission, which temporarily suspended the program last week in response to EPIC’s lawsuit, filed an opposition brief earlier on Monday. The case is EPIC v. Commission, No. 17-1320 (D.D.C. filed July 3, 2017).

In a motion filed today, EPIC urged a federal court to issue a preliminary injunction to block the collection of state voter records by the Presidential Election Commission. The Commission suspended collection of personal voter data earlier this week in response to EPIC's lawsuit. But as EPIC told the court, "the threat to voter privacy and democratic institutions remains. The Commission intends to move forward, pending this Court's determination. It has established a new server within the White House to receive the voter data. It has advised state election officials that further communications regarding this undertaking are forthcoming." A response from the Commission is due Monday, July 17. The Commission is scheduled to hold its first public meeting on July 19, in Washington, DC. The case is EPIC v. Commission, No. 17-1320 (D.D.C. filed July 3, 2017).

EPIC has submitted urgent FOIA requests to the General Services Administration, the Election Commission, and the Arkansas Secretary of State for information about the State of Arkansas's production of voter data to the federal Commission. The request follows EPIC's lawsuit to block the transfer of state voter records to the Commission. In a hearing in federal court on July 7th, the Department of Justice revealed that Arkansas had transferred voter histories to the Commission, contradicting an July 5th statement by Vice Chair Kobach that no such transfers had occurred. EPIC is now seeking records of the Commission's compliance with Arkansas procedures for obtaining voter registration data, including designation of appropriate data elements, payment of fees, compliance with security requirements, and completion of necessary forms. In EPIC v. Commission, EPIC has argued that "As a matter of law, there is no 'publicly available' voter data that may be transferred to the Commission."

Twenty-four Senators have sent a letter to the Presidential Election Commission demanding that the Commission abandon its attempt to collect nationwide voter data. "This request is unprecedented in scope and raises serious privacy concerns," the Senators wrote. "The requested data is highly sensitive and after recent data breaches and cyber-attacks targeting our election infrastructure, we are deeply concerned about how the Commission will maintain the security and privacy of the data." The Senators also wrote that "the Commission's lack of focus on legitimate threats, such as foreign cyber-attacks on our election infrastructure," was "troubling." In EPIC v. Commission, EPIC is seeking to block the Commission from obtaining state voter records.

A federal court has ordered additional briefing in EPIC's lawsuit to block the collection of state voter records by the Presidential Election Commission. The court asked EPIC to file an amended motion by Thursday, July 13. The Commission would then respond to EPIC by Monday, July 17. A ruling will likely follow. The court noted that "no additional voter roll information will be collected until this Court issues a ruling, and that information that has already been collected will be purged." Earlier this week, the Commission suspended collection of voter data in response to EPIC's lawsuit. The Commission is scheduled to hold its first public meeting on July 19, in Washington, DC. The case is EPIC v. Commission, No. 17-1320 (D.D.C. filed July 3, 2017).

EPIC has sued the White House IT Director as part of EPIC's ongoing case to block the transfer of sensitive voter data to the Presidential Election Commission. The White House IT Director, as well as the Commission, are required by law to publish a Privacy Impact Assessment before collecting any personal information. As EPIC explained to the Court earlier today, "The Commission may not play 'hide the ball' with the nation's voter records. With such vast demands for personal information come commensurate responsibilities to provide security and privacy, and to comply with all legal obligations." The case is EPIC v. Commission, No. 17-1320 (D.D.C. filed July 3, 2017).

In a court filing on Tuesday, EPIC urged a federal court to issue a temporary restraining order to block the collection of voter data by the Presidential Election Commission. "The Commission may not play 'hide the ball' with the nation's voter records," EPIC wrote. "With such vast demands for personal information come commensurate responsibilities to provide security and privacy, and to comply with all legal obligations. Surely that is fundamental for an organization charged with promoting 'election integrity.'" On Monday, the Commission suspended the collection of voter data in response to EPIC's suit. The case is EPIC v. Commission, No. 17-1320 (D.D.C. filed July 3, 2017).

The President’s Election Commission announced today it would suspend the collection of state voter data in response to a lawsuit filed by EPIC last week in Washington, DC. EPIC had challenged the Commission’s use of a Department of Defense website to collect millions of state voter records—an unsecure system that is not approved for storing the public’s personal data. EPIC also charged that the Commission lacked authority to gather state voter data and said that the Commission had violated the right to information privacy. The Commission said it would not use the “SAFE” system to collect personal data. The Commission also told states “not to submit any data until this Court rules” on EPIC’s motion. The case is EPIC v. Commission, No. 17-1320 (D.D.C. filed July 3, 2017).

A federal court set a Monday, 4 p.m. deadline for the government to file a brief in EPIC v. Commission. The court is expected to rule shortly in EPIC's lawsuit to block the President's Election Commission from collecting state voter records from across the country. In a series of filings with the court, EPIC explained that the Commission failed to prepare a Privacy Impact Assessment as required by Federal law. EPIC also charged that the Commission's demand for detailed voter histories violated the Constitutional right to privacy. And EPIC explained that the Commission has already committed multiple egregious security blunders, including directing state election officials to send voter records to an unsecure website that is not approved for storing the public's personal data. The case is EPIC v. Commission, No. 17-1320 (D.D.C. filed July 3, 2017).

In a reply filed today in federal district court, EPIC charged that the President's Election Commission "has conceded the obvious: the privacy implications of this unprecedented demand for voter roll data from across the country are staggering." EPIC rebutted every point in the government's response, noting that the Commission often failed to cite any support for its extraordinary claims to gather personal data outside of federal privacy law. Members of the EPIC Advisory Board, experts in computer technology, contributed affidavits that underscored the vulnerabilities of the Commission's plan to aggregate personal voter data. EPIC also called Vice Chair Kobach's statements "alternately misleading or meritless." EPIC said the Commission's actions "places at risk the privacy interests of registered voters across the country." In EPIC v. Commission, EPIC is seeking to block the transfer of sensitive voter data to a Presidential Commission on Election Integrity. EPIC explained to the Court that it has "a clear likelihood of success on the merits."

In a declaration filed in federal court in Washington, DC, Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State and Vice Chair of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, said that he “intended” that the voter data he requested from the states not be sent by email (the letter to the states indicated otherwise). Kobach also said that “the Commission intends to maintain the data on the White House computer systems.” Kobach acknowledged that “numerous states have indicated that they will decline to provide all or some portion of the information, in some cases because state law prohibits such transfer of information.” Kobach also said, “As of July 5, 2017, no Secretary of State had yet provided to the Commission any of the information requested in my letter.” There is no indication that the Commission has completed a Privacy Impact Assessment or complied with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. EPIC filed an emergency motion earlier this week to block the disclosure of state voter information to the Commission, calling the data demand a violation of the Constitutional right to privacy. The Department of Justice has filed an opposition.

EPIC has submitted an urgent FOIA request for details of the Election Commission's attempt to gather voter records from state election officials. The Commission requested dates of birth, party affiliation, partial SSNs, voter history, and felony convictions and military service status. EPIC wants the Commission to turn over records about compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Privacy Act, and the E-Government Act. EPIC is also seeking communications among Commission officials as well as information about the failure to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment. Over 40 states now partially or fully oppose the request for voter records. In a related lawsuit, EPIC v. Commission, EPIC has filed for a Temporary Restraining Order to block the Commission's efforts.

EPIC today filed for a Temporary Restraining Order to block a demand from a Presidential Commission for millions of state voter records. In papers filed in federal district court in Washington, D.C., EPIC explained that the Commission failed to produce and publish a Privacy Impact Assessment, required by Federal law. EPIC also charged that the Commission’s demand for detailed voter histories violated the Constitutional right to privacy. And EPIC explained that the Commission had already committed two egregious security blunders—(1) directing state election officials to send voter records to an unsecure web site and (2) proposing to publish partial SSNs that would enable identity theft and financial fraud. The Court gave the government until Wednesday, July 5 to file an opposition. EPIC will then file a reply. A ruling is expected by the end of the week. The EPIC lawsuit follows a letter from 50 voting experts and 20 privacy organizations urging state election officials to oppose the Commission’s demand. The case is EPIC v. Commission, No. 17-1320 (D.D.C. filed July 3, 2017).

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review a ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that a Texas voter ID law violates the Voting Right Act. The decision means that Texas won't be able to enforce the law, which poses a significant threat to voter privacy and could discourage legal voters. Last summer, the appeals court held that the Texas Law had a "discriminatory effect" on minorities' voting rights and remanded the case to the lower court. Texas petitioned the Supreme Court to review the decision, but the court refused to do so Monday. EPIC filed an amicus brief arguing that that the Texas law places an unconstitutional burden on voters' rights to informational privacy because of the excessive collection of personal data. Such bills "disenfranchise individuals who seek to protect their personal information from data breach, cybercrime, and commercial exploitation," EPIC told the court.

President Obama's top homeland security advisor Lisa Monaco announced today that the Administration has asked the intelligence community to conduct a "full review" of cyber activity during the 2016 election. In 2016, EPIC urged candidates for office to focus on data protection, calling it "the most important, least well understood issue" of the 2016 election. EPIC also published a report on the importance of the secret ballot for democratic decision making. EPIC's Freedom of Information Act litigation uncovered flaws in online voting reported by the Department of Defense just prior to the 2012 election.

With voters heading to the polls for the 2016 Presidential election, EPIC has urged national focus on "data protection," calling it "the most important, least well understood issue" of this election season. Together with Common Cause and Verified Voting, EPIC also published a report on the importance of the secret ballot for democratic decision making. And EPIC's Freedom of Information Act litigation has uncovered flaws in online voting reported by the Department of Defense in a 2011 report. EPIC is non-partisan, educational organization and does not endorse candidates for public office.

The Maryland State Board of Elections has voted to certify Maryland’s online ballot-marking system for general use, threatening voter privacy. Voters using the online-ballot marking system would receive and fill out their ballot online, risking third party access their vote. Previously online ballot-marking was permitted only to enable participation by voters with disabilities. EPIC, Verified Voting, and Common Cause recently released The Secret Ballot at Risk: Recommendations for Protecting Democracy, a report highlighting the right to a secret ballot and how Internet voting threatens voter privacy. EPIC has a long history of working to protect voter privacy and election integrity.

EPIC, Verified Voting, and Common Cause today released The Secret Ballot at Risk: Recommendations for Protecting Democracy, a report highlighting the right to a secret ballot and how Internet voting threatens voter privacy. All 50 states recognize ballot secrecy as a core value. Despite this, 32 states and DC are promoting Internet voting, typically for overseas and military voters, and are asking those voters to waive their right to a secret ballot. That threatens voting freedom and election integrity. The report recommends actions voters can take to protect the secrecy of their ballot, and encourages states to do more to safeguard voter privacy. EPIC has a long history of working to protect voter privacy and election integrity.

A federal appeals court has ruled that a Texas voter ID law violates the Voting Rights Act. In a fractured opinion, the court held that Senate Bill 14 had a “discriminatory effect” on minorities’ voting rights, and remanded the case to the lower court. The appeals court instructed the district court to provide interim relief for individuals, which could include suspending the voter ID requirement, ahead of the November 2016 election. EPIC filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that SB 14 also places an unconstitutional burden on voters’ rights to informational privacy because of the excessive collection of personal data.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled that the strict Texas Voter ID requirement is unlawful because it would disproportionately burden minority voters, in violation of the Voting Rights Act. EPIC has previously raised similar arguments about voter privacy in its amicus brief in the Supreme Court case Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. EPIC argued in Crawford that "Not only has the state failed to establish the need for the voter identification law or to address the disparate impact of the law, the state's voter ID system is imperfect, and relies on a flawed federal identification system." EPIC also presented a statement to the House Judiciary Committee in 2007 highlighting the importance of the secret ballot.

A new report from the U.S. Vote Foundation concludes that no internet voting systems provide adequate security for public elections. The report recommends "end-to-end verifiable voting," which allows voters to confirm that their votes were recorded. The system would also verify that votes are correctly tabulated. EPIC has obtained FOIA documents from the Department of Defense regarding the functionality and reliability of an e-voting.

As the result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, EPIC has obtained a September 2011 report about online voting. The report, produced in response to EPIC's July 2014 FOIA request, summarizes a pilot test of e-voting system. The report recommends several changes, including accessibility and user interface, but does little to address privacy and security concerns except for recommending "visible security features" to "give users greater confidence in the privacy and security of their ballots." EPIC will continue to pursue the documents that have been withheld from the public about the risks of online voting.

EPIC has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to obtain test reports about an online voting program promoted by the Department of Defense. The records sought relate to the functionality and security of electronic voting systems. The California Secretary of State, Members of Congress, and voting rights advocates have tried to obtain these documents, but DOD has kept them secret even after promising public disclosure in 2012. Computer scientists have long warned about the risks of electronic voting systems. In the complaint, EPIC states that "it is absolutely critical for the documents sought in this matter be disclosed prior to further deployment of e-voting systems in the United States." The case is EPIC v. Department of Defense, No 14-1555 (D.D.C. filed 9/11/2014). For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DOD - E-voting Security Tests.

A special panel of federal judges in Washington, DC has barred the state of South Carolina from enforcing new voter identification requirements in the upcoming November elections. The court was "unable to conclude" that South Carolina could implement its voter identification law in a way that would "suffice under the Voting Rights Act" before the upcoming elections. The court did grant preclearance to implement the law after the November elections citing the "extremely broad interpretation of the reasonable impediment provision," which allows South Carolina voters to still vote if they complete an affidavit affirming their identity and state the reason for not having obtained photo identification. EPIC has previously argued that voter ID requirements impermissibly burden the right to vote. For more information, see EPIC: Voter ID and Privacy and EPIC: Crawford v. Marion County.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has invalidated a Texas law that would require voters to present a photo identification in order to vote. Calling the law “the most stringent in the country,” the court held that “record evidence suggests that [the law], if implemented, would in fact have a retrogressive effect on Hispanic and African American voters.” Therefore, the court held, the law violates section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 5 requires “covered jurisdictions” to show that new voting procedures, such as Voter ID requirements, are nondiscriminatory before those changes can be put into effect. The ruling came after the Department of Justice previously blocked the law through the Section 5 preclearance process. EPIC has argued that unreasonable voter ID requirements are an impermissible burden on the right to vote. For more information, see EPIC: Voter Photo ID and Privacy and EPIC: Crawford v. Marion County.

A report by the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania found that 86 percent of voters did not want political campaigns to tailor advertisements based on their interests. This percentage is higher than the percentage of respondents who reject other tailored advertisements (61%) or tailored news (56%). Significantly, a majority of respondents also reported that they would be less likely to vote for candidates that targeted them with tailored ads. For more information, see EPIC: Voter Privacy and EPIC: Public Opinion and Privacy.

In a second challenge to Wisconsin's voter ID requirement, Judge David Flanagan has held that the ID law imposes an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote. The law "tells more than 300,000 Wisconsin voters who do not now have an acceptable form of photo identification that they cannot vote unless they first obtain a photo ID card," wrote Judge Flanagan. The opinion follows a similar ruling earlier this year by Wisconsin judge Richard Niees. For more information EPIC: Voter Photo ID and Privacy and EPIC: Crawford v. Marion County.

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on “Prohibiting the Use of Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Tactics in Federal Elections." The Senate is considering new legislation to address the problem of deceptive practices and voter intimidation. Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy cited "burdensome identification laws" as one of the obstacles to public participation in federal elections. A new report highlights similar problems in the recent Canadian national election. EPIC has published reports on deceptive campaign practices and filed briefs in opposition to unnecessary voter ID requirements. For more information see EPIC Voting Privacy and EPIC - Crawford v. Marion County.

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion rejecting Shelby County, Alabama's constitutional challenge to the preclearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Court held that Section 5 of the Act, which requires "covered jurisdictions" to show that new voting procedures, such as Voter ID requirements, are nondiscriminatory before those changes can be put into effect, is constitutional. Shelby County challenged the preclearance requirements after Congress reauthorized Section 5 in 2006. The Department of Justice recently blocked Voter ID laws in South Carolina and Texas through the Section 5 preclearance process. EPIC has argued that unreasonable voter ID requirements are an impermissible burden on the right to vote. For more information, see EPIC: Voter Photo ID and Privacy and EPIC: Crawford v. Marion County.

A three-judge panel overseeing a critical voter ID case, State of South Carolina v United States of America, set out an unusually detailed requirements in an Scheduling and Procedures Order issued today. According to the concurring statement of Judge Bates, joined by Judge Kollar-Kotelly, the state has engaged in delaying tactics even as it has urged a swift resolution of the matter, concerning new voting ID procedures adopted by the state. The court cited South Carolina's lack of responsiveness to the Department of Justice, "despite repeated requests" for the "final versions of the implementing procedures" for provisions of the law. The court expects to issue a final ruling in early September 2012., prior to the fall Presidential election. For more information, see EPIC: Voter Photo ID and Privacy.

The Department of Justice has determined that a Texas voter ID law that requires photo identification violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Texas law requires voters to present a driver's license or ID card issued by the state. The law also permits a voter to use military photo ID, a US citizenship certificate that contains the person's photograph, a US passport, or a license to carry a concealed handgun. The Department of Justice found that the Texas voter ID law disproportionately affects Hispanic voters because Hispanic voters are between 47% and 120% more likely than non-Hispanic registered voters to lack acceptable photo identification. The Department of Justice found that Texas "has not met its burden of proving that . . . the proposed [voter ID law] will not have a retrogressive effect, or that any specific features of the proposed law will prevent or mitigate that retrogression." In the voting conext, "retogression" refers to the disenfranchisement of eligible voters. For more information, see EPIC: Voter Photo ID and Privacy.

A Wisconsin state court has granted a temporary order blocking the state from enforcing a new voter ID requirement. Wisconsin is one of eight states that now require voters to present a government-issued photo ID. Voter ID laws typically discourage voter turnout, particularly among poor and minority communities. In NAACP v. Walker, the Wisconsin court said that the "scope of impairment has been shown to be serious, extremely broad and largely needless." For more information, see EPIC: Voter Photo ID and Privacy.

A group of U.S. senators have asked the Government Accountability Office to study the “alarming number” of new state laws that will make it “significantly harder” for millions of eligible voters to cast ballots this November. New state identification laws, by one estimate, will have a direct impact on 21 million American citizens who do not have a government-issued photo ID. The majority of those people are young would-be voters, the elderly, African Americans, Hispanics, and those earning $35,000 per year or less. For more information, see EPIC: Voting Privacy and Voter Photo ID and Privacy.

The Virginia Senate passed a controversial voter photo ID law by one vote. The bill now goes to the Virginia House for consideration. Voter ID laws implicate the privacy rights rights of voters and also discourage voter turnout particularly among poorer voters who may not have necessary credentials, such as a drivers license. In 2007, EPIC challenged the Indiana voter photo ID law. For more information, see EPIC: Voting Privacy and EPIC: Crawford v. Marion County.

The Justice Department has blocked South Carolina's voter ID law, calling it a violation of the federal Voting Rights Act. The Department said the new photo ID requirements would dispropotionately exclude eligible minority voters from federal elections. The South Carolina law prohibits voting by anyone who does not possess a state driver's license, US Passport, Military ID, or voter registration card. Many eligible voters who participated in the 2008 and 2010 elections may be prevented from voting in 2012. Earlier, EPIC filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court, challenging an Indiana voter ID law. See EPIC: Voter Photo ID and Privacy and NCSL: State Voter ID Laws.

More than 30 states are considering new laws that would require voters to obtain government-issued photo identification. Voter photo identification laws have been routinely challenged in federal court, and many have been set aside or altered. Currently eight states have photo identification requirements. Prior to the Help America Vote Act, most states allowed several forms of identification to establish residence. In 2007, EPIC filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court, joining a challenge to an Indiana voter ID law. The Court upheld the law 6-3. Justice Souter wrote in dissent, "this statute imposes a disproportionate burden upon those without" government-issued photo IDs. For more information, see EPIC Voter Photo ID and Privacy and EPIC - Crawford v. Marion County.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center released the 2010 update to its "E-Deceptive Campaign Practices: Technology and Democracy 2.0" report, first published in 2008. The report reviews the potential for abuse of Internet-based technology in the election context, and makes recommendations on steps that should be taken by Election Administrators, voters, and those involved in Election Protection efforts. E-Deceptive campaigns are internet-based attempts to misdirect targeted voters regarding the voting process, and include false statements about poll place hours, election dates, voter identification rules, or voter eligibility requirements. For more information, see EPIC: Voting.

EPIC has filed a "friend of the court" brief in the United States Supreme Court, urging the Justices to protect the privacy of those who sign petitions. In Doe v. Reed, the Court has been asked to determine whether the state of Washington may force disclosure of the names of citizens who have signed petitions for ballot initiatives. EPIC's brief argues that revealing the names would subject signatories to the risk of retribution, that signing petitions constitutes anonymous speech, and that signing petitions is similar to casting a vote and should be protected accordingly. For more information, see EPIC Doe v. Reed.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appointed EPIC Associate Director and leading election reform advocate, Lillie Coney to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Board of Advisors. EAC is an independent, bipartisan commission charged with developing guidance to meet Help America Vote Act requirements, adopting voluntary voting system guidelines, and serving as a national clearinghouse of information about election administration. The EAC also accredits testing laboratories and certifies voting systems, as well as audits the use of HAVA funds. Ms. Coney leads EPIC’s voting project and has worked on developing voting technology standards, statewide-centralized voter registration systems with privacy safeguards, and voter identification policy. For more information, see EPIC: Lillie Coney and EPIC’s Voting Privacy Page.

Yesterday, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that the Indiana Voter ID law, which requires certain individuals to present government-issued photo identification before they could vote, violates the state Constitution. The law is unconstitutional, the court held, because it “regulates voters in a manner that is not uniform and impartial.” The United States Supreme Court previously ruled that the law did not violate the federal Constitution, but did not address the law’s validity under the Indiana Constitution. EPIC and ten legal scholars and technical experts filed a “friend-of-the-court” brief in that case, urging the Court to invalidate the law because of its disparate impact and its reliance on REAL-ID, a "flawed federal identification system.” For more information, see Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and EPIC Voting Privacy.

Overview

EPIC has a long history of working on voter privacy and vote integrity issues, which E-voting directly affects.

In April 2015, as the result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, EPIC obtained a September 2011 report about online voting from the Department of Defense. The report, produced in response to EPIC's July 2014 FOIA request, summarizes a pilot test of e-voting system. The report recommends several changes, including accessibility and user interface, but does little to address privacy and security concerns except for recommending "visible security features" to "give users greater confidence in the privacy and security of their ballots." EPIC will continue to pursue the documents that have been withheld from the public about the risks of online voting.

In 2010, EPIC released an update to its "E-Deceptive Campaign Practices: Technology and Democracy 2.0" report, first published in 2008. The report reviewed the potential for abuse of Internet-based technology in the election context, and made recommendations on steps that should be taken by Election Administrators, voters, and those involved in Election Protection efforts. E-Deceptive campaigns are internet-based attempts to misdirect targeted voters regarding the voting process, and include false statements about poll place hours, election dates, voter identification rules, or voter eligibility requirements.

In 2009, EPIC recommended greater transparency on the standards development process to the Election Assistance Commission ("EAC"). The agency sought public comments on a draft of the agency's Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. In its comments, EPIC requested that the EAC follow President Obama's directive to all federal government agencies that they take affirmative steps to make their activities regarding standards development more transparent to the public, make ballot secrecy a critical component of federal voting technology standards, and maintain software independence in the next iteration of voting technology standards.

In 2008, EPIC submitted comments to the Election Assistance Commission on the proposed Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. EPIC proposed new guidance on privacy protection in the casting of ballots. EPIC also recommended more transparency for the privacy protections provided by federally certified voting systems.

Additionally, EPIC testified before the Election Assistance Commission on the 2007 Voting System Guidelines. EPIC urged the Commission to "offer clear and effective guidance to states on issues of functional capability, hardware, software, telecommunication, security, quality assurance, and configuration of voting systems."

The secrecy and the security of the vote are integral to America's voting system, and both are threatened by online voting. Cyber security experts at the National Institute of Standards and Technology have stated that "additional research and development is needed... before secure Internet voting will be feasible." In 2012, a top cybersecurity official at the Department of Homeland Security stated that "it's premature to deploy Internet voting in real elections at this time." Internet voting systems cannot be properly fully secured and create the possibility of undetectable alteration of ballots. Because of ballot secrecy, individual voters are unable to verify that their votes were properly cast. Online voting is thereby particularly susceptible to undetectable hacking and tampering.

Additionally, anonymity is a fundamental aspect of voting rights in the United States. Online voting, however, makes simultaneous audit ability and anonymity in the voting process extremely difficult to implement.

Finally, online voting requires the use of databases which are likely to include sensitive personal information, the security of which is untested and unclear.

The 2000 Election

The 2000 election brought the systemic problems in our nation's electoral process that had existed for decades to the attention of the mainstream media, a majority of voters, policy makers, and international observers. A confluence of the perfect political storm occurred when the margin of electoral votes between the top two candidates was only five votes. There were only two other states with more electoral votes than Florida, California with 54 and Texas with 32. Because of the narrow margin separating the candidates in the Florida 2000 Presidential Election, the winner of that electoral rich state would be declared the next President of the United States. The post-election battle for the White House began in Florida and eventually was decided by the United States Supreme Court. The impact of this Supreme Court decision changed the resource allocation of candidates in post 2000 elections to include the retaining of attorneys.

In 2000, the focus was on Florida, but the problems in that state were repeated in many others. That presidential year was like any other except for one fact-the deciding margin of victory was only 537 votes. This number is dwarfed by the number of voters disenfranchised according to the CalTech MIT Study "Voting: What Is What Could Be," which records that between 4 and 6 million votes were lost in the 2000 election.6 The study attributed the loss to problems with voter registration or polling place practices and problems with ballots. As a consequence, voters received a rude introduction to the reality of elections in the United States-not every vote cast was counted.

In reply to the crisis of the Presidential Election of 2000, the federal government attempted to clarify and codify voting rights in the United States for the 2004 election through the enactment and implementation of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) Law. However, this law was in many ways too little too late. HAVA, for the first time in the nation's history, established a role for the federal government in public elections held to fill federal elected offices. The establishment of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) in statute did not translate into expedited action on the part of policymakers to appoint the EAC leadership. The four Commissioners, two Democrats Gracia Hillman and Ray Martinez and two Republicans, DeForest B. Soaries and Paul DeGregorio who were selected to serve as the first EAC Commission were not sworn into office until December 12, 2003.

The EAC Commissioners received only $1.2 million in funding for Fiscal year 2004 and did not move into their own offices until April 1, 2004 seven months prior to the election. The new law included a directive to states to create statewide voter registration databases, identification, and new requirements for first time-registered voters. To accomplish these objectives the law provided over $3 billion in federal funds to be allocated to states under the guidance of the EAC. However, the EAC lacked the time and funding recourses necessary to ensure that the goals of election reform outlined in HAVA were accomplished. EAC's late start did not allow them the time that was necessary to develop federal standards that would guide the states in the use of the funds made available. In particular, the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC), a technical advisory body to the EAC charged with the development of voluntary standards for voting technology met for the first time on July 9, 2004.

Under HAVA, states retain control of the election process, but they must meet minimum standards set forth in HAVA. HAVA was generally popular among members of Congress, yet received some criticism because it required more stringent voter identification procedures. HAVA passed 92 to 2 in the Senate and 357 to 48 in the House with bi-partisan support. HAVA also required voters to provide either a state driver's license number or the last four digits of their Social Security Number (SSN) if they did not have driver's licenses.9 HAVA also required election officials to verify voters' identification with administrative agencies (i.e., comparing driver's licenses with local Departments of Motor Vehicles and SSNs with the Social Security Administration.) Dissenters feared that the new requirements would "raise hurdles to registration and voting by poor people and members of minority groups, especially Hispanics."

In particular, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton remarked that HAVA "would probably 'repress voter participation' by recently naturalized American citizens, homeless people and millions of New Yorkers who have no driver's license." Supporters of the stricter identification requirements countered that the measures were important because "illegal votes dilute the value of legally cast votes." According to Senator Bond of Missouri, "If your vote is canceled by the vote of a dog or a dead person, it's as if you did not have a right to vote." While attempting to strengthen the integrity of the electoral process by requiring stronger voter identification requirements, HAVA did little to address the potential problems of skewed election outcomes if the electronic voting machines are faulty or rigged.

The transactions associated with voting unlike other exchanges in society, require privacy for individual voters and transparency of the overall voting system.19 The conundrum presented by paperless DRE voting technology further complicates this transaction of voter choice and privacy in a populous self-governing matrix of nearly 200 million potential participants by not producing a physical audit instrument that is verified by each voter at his or her choice. It appears to be a daunting challenge, which will require strong Federal support for research and development as new generations of voting technology emerge.

Poll Workers and Voter Privacy

According to the CalTech MIT Study "Voting: What Is What Could Be," between 4 and 6 million votes were lost in the 2000 election. The study attributed the loss to problems with voter registration or polling place practices and problems with ballots.

Elections systems rely on voluntary participation of poll workers and voters. The major challenge of election systems is to create ease of use in a process that is done very infrequently. At most, the greatest voter participation is seen during presidential election years, which occur once every four years.

Problems with the DRE machines

Lack of transparency. DRE makers such as Diebold, Sequoia and ES&S refuse to make their software code available to the public to assess, nor are they willing to publicize the kind of testing they do.

Inadequate testing of software. Voting machines are currently certified by states through a Qualification Process overseen by the National Organization of State Election Directors and based on 2002 Federal Election Commission guidelines. The method of testing has not been released to the public, but it is known that the process allows for the inclusion of secret code and the use of commercial software products without certification, and has been criticized by computer scientists and engineers, including the California Touch Screen Task Force and Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, as extremely inadequte.

Vulnerability to fraud. The Johns Hopkins study found that DRE machine security safeguards are "far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts." As a result, these systems are vulnerable to both insider and outsider attacks. One of the most glaring examples of a security vulnerability is the study's finding that voters can program their own "smartcards" - which are used to certify identity at the voting terminals - and then use them to cast multiple ballots. The study also found that voters can hack into voting records, view partial election results, and cause elections to terminate early. Insiders, including election officials and poll workers, were also found to be capable of manipulating the system. While improved use of cryptography and security measures could improve some of these flaws, even thorough testing cannot reveal some types of malicious code.

Lack of audit ability. The threat of bugs and security failures are magnified by the fact that none of the DRE machines currently on the market create a hard copy of voters' results, also known as a "paper trail." The lack of a paper record of one's vote makes it impossible to verify if the computer has, indeed, recorded your vote in the system as it is shown on the screen. Furthermore, lack of a paper record makes meaningful recounts or audits impossible because any recount would simply corroborate the same count the computer made the first time and would not catch any errors.

Privacy Implications

The secrecy and the security of the vote are integral to America's voting system, and both are in jeopardy when DRE machines are used in elections. In addition to the discussion above, two related issues arise from DRE voting systems and the Help America Vote Act.

Anonymity vs. Audit ablity. Anonymity is a fundamental aspect of voting rights in the U.S. DRE machines make it difficult to have both audit ability and anonymity in the voting process. In the current system, to make voting results anonymous, these machines randomize the voting sequence, which also makes it impossible to track their accuracy.

Voter Database. HAVA requires states to have "a single, uniform, official, centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter registration list" which includes the name and registration information (including driver's license number or last 4 digits of social security number) of every voter, will be available to "all election officials in the State." It does not stipulate security standards to protect this information, only stating that "state or local official shall provide adequate technological security measures to prevent the unauthorized access to the computerized list." The law does state that the information "shall be considered strictly confidential and shall be used only for the purposes" of voting and that violating said confidentiality constitutes a felony.

Other Voting Systems

Optical scan voting systems. An optical scan system use ballots similar to multiple-choice tests, where voters fill in bubbles (aka "scan targets") for corresponding candidates. It is by definition voter-verifiable. Problems arise, however, when voters do not correctly mark their choices. Ballots also become unwieldy in voting venues with large numbers of offices, candidates and propositions, and with multi-lingual requirements. However, one company, Vogue Election Systems, is working on a touch-screen voting machine that would mark an optical-scan sheet of the voters choices. This system appears to remedy the most pressing problems with both the DRE and optical scan systems, but it has not yet been tested or certified.

Internet voting. The U.S. government is currently experimenting with the practice of internet voting. In April 2015, as the result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, EPIC obtained a September 2011 report about online voting from the Department of Defense. The report, produced in response to EPIC's July 2014 FOIA request, summarizes a pilot test of e-voting system. The report recommends several changes, including accessibility and user interface, but does little to address privacy and security concerns except for recommending "visible security features" to "give users greater confidence in the privacy and security of their ballots." Security experts say that Internet voting is vulnerable to disruption from viruses and server-based attacks.

In March 2018, an EPIC Freedom of Information Act request revealed that officials from four federal agencies had discussed joint efforts to "clean" state voter rolls in 2017. The records obtained by EPIC show that the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (PACEI), the Voting Section of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) explored ways to cooperate on "cleaning" and "maintenance" of state voter registration databases.

Notably, these interagency discussions took place during the same period of 2017 that the PACEI and the DOJ were seeking vast amounts of election data from state election officials. Many states refused to provide the requested information, citing the privacy rights of their voters and the states' power to administer their own elections.

After EPIC brought suit against the PACEI in July 2017 to halt its unlawful gathering of personal voter data, the Commission temporarily suspended its data collection, discontinued the use of an unsafe computer server, deleted voter information that was illegally obtained, and ultimately disbanded. Meanwhile, EPIC also sought records from the DOJ about the agency's separate request for voter information.

In one set of emails disclosed to EPIC, Christy McCormick—an Election Assistance Commissioner and member of the PACEI—dismissed concerns about the federal government's sweeping demands for state voter information as "conspiracy theories." Writing to John Gore, a top voting rights attorney at DOJ, McCormick said she hoped the DOJ and the PACEI could "clean up the voter rolls" together:

I've been reading the stories/conspiracy theories about your NVRA [National Voter Registration Act] letter and the Commission's letter going out to the States on the same day and am amused at all the speculation and conclusions in them. Hopefully between DOJ and the Commission we can clean up the voter rolls. For the life of me, I don't know why people should be against cleaning the rolls up.

But a different email obtained by EPIC shows that the PACEI and the DOJ's Voting Section discussed "election integrity" just two weeks before the agencies sent out their simultaneous requests for voter information.

Another set of emails between McCormick and DOJ voting rights attorney Maureen Riordan show the ways in which federal officials sought to collaborate on voting roll "maintenance." Officials from the EAC, the DOJ, and the DHS appear to have conducted two meetings in February 2017 to discuss possible coordination between the agencies.

In one message, McCormick recapped an interagency meeting for Riordan: "Good discussion on elections including EAC, DOJ and DHS. Was told Senator McConnell is very interested in elections." In another message, McCormick sent Riordan possible topics for a subsequent interagency meeting—topics which the DOJ redacted from the records disclosed to EPIC. "I hope this is a helpful starting point on several areas in which we could cooperate," McCormick told Riordan. In a third email, McCormick shared EAC documents with Riordan about "NVRA list maintenance."

VerifiedVoting.org. Web site maintained by Stanford computer science professor David Dill to provide information about the dangers of electronic voting systems and encourage activism to protect voter rights.

EPIC Participates in an Election Manual Audit of the Takoma Park Maryland Municipal Elections. On November 3, 2009 residents of Takoma Park Maryland became the first voters in the United States to use the Scantagrity voting system to cast ballots in a public election. (Nov. 3)

EPIC Comments on New Voting Technology Standards. EPIC recommends greater transparency on the standards development process to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The agency sought public comments on the latest draft of the agency's Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. In the comments, EPIC requests that the EAC follow President Obama’sdirective to all federal government agencies that they take affirmative steps to make their activities regarding standards development more transparent to the public, make ballot secrecy a critical component of federal voting technology standards, and maintain software independence in the next iteration of voting technology standards."(Sept. 28)

E-Deceptive Campaign Practices Technology Report Released. EPIC's voting project releases the first report on the technology of deceptive campaign practices. Deceptive campaigns are attempts to misdirect voters regarding the voting process for public elections. Deceptive campaign activity can be false statements about polling times, date of the election, or voter identification rules. The EPIC report reviews the potential for abuse of Internet technology in an election context, and makes recommendations on steps that could be taken by Election Protection, Election Administrators, and voters to protect the integrity of the upcoming election. A legal and policy companion of the report was simultaneously released by Common Cause and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. For more information, see EPIC's Voting Project . (Oct 20)

EPIC Testifies Before the Election Commission on New Voting Guidelines: EPIC Associate Director Lillie Coney testified before the Election Assistance Commission on the 2007 Voting System Guidelines. EPIC urged the Commission to "offer clear and effective guidance to states on issues of functional capability, hardware, software, telecommunication, security, quality assurance, and configuration of voting systems." The Commission is nearing the end of the second voting guidelines drafting process.

Supreme Court Upholds Voter ID Law. The U.S. Supreme Court today struck down a challenge to a voter ID law in Indiana. In 6-3 opinion (pdf), the majority said the state interests "are both neutral and sufficiently strong to require us to reject petitioners' facial attack on the statute," and the burden imposed on voters was "minimal and justified." Justice Souter wrote in dissent, "this statute imposes a disproportionate burden upon those without" government-issued photo IDs. EPIC had submitted a brief (pdf) detailing problems with the law. "Not only has the state failed to establish the need for the voter identification law or to address the disparate impact of the law, the state's voter ID system is imperfect, and relies on a flawed federal identification system." See EPIC page on Crawford v. Marion County (Apr. 28)

Bill to Reimburse Jurisdictions for Cost of Paper Ballots for November Fails: The House failed to pass H.R. 5036 with a sufficient margin to ensure that jurisdictions that decide to acquire paper ballot systems for the November 2008 election from being reimbursed by the federal government. The measure would have also provided funding to states for conducting post election audits. The vote was actually a procedural move to place the bill on the "Suspension Calendar," which would indicate a non-controversial measure. The Democrats and Republicans had worked out an agreement to support the bill being placed on the Suspension Calendar, but the White House issued a statement late on the day prior to the vote in opposition of the effort. This resulted in a nearly perfect party line vote-resulting in the outcome falling short of the 2/3rds majority needed. The vote was 239 for and 178 against placing the bill on House Calendar under suspensions. (April 15, 2008)

EPIC, Experts Urge Supreme Court to Strike Down Indiana Voter Photo ID Law: In a "friend-of-the-court" brief (pdf) filed today, EPIC and 10 legal scholars and technical experts urged the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate an Indiana law requiring individuals to show a government-issued photo ID card before allowing them to vote. "Not only has the state failed to establish the need for the voter identification law or to address the disparate impact of the law, the state's voter ID system is imperfect, and relies on a flawed federal identification system," called REAL ID, they said. For more information, see EPIC's page concerning the case and the National Committee for Voting Integrity. (November 13, 2007)

EPIC's Voting Project Submits Statement on Election Audits to House Committee: EPIC's voting project the national Committee for Voting Integrity submits a statement to the House Committee on Administration for its hearing on the topic of "Election Reform: Auditing."the statement supported the establishment of public election auditing standards that are just as well accepted, and measurable as financial auditing standards to achieve greater transparency of the public election process. (March 20, 2007)

EPIC Opposes Increasing ID Requirements for Voters in a statement to the House Committee on the Judiciary, cautioned against new proof of citizenship requirements for federal elections. Absent evidence of an actual problem, EPIC warned that the requirement could discourage legal voters. EPIC noted that Congress has already provided for provisional ballots for instances when there are doubts about the status of voters seeking to cast ballots in public elections. For more information, see EPIC's Voting and Privacy page and the National Committee for Voting Integrity Web site. (March 7, 2007)

NCVI Announces Recommendations for E-voting Systems: The National Committee for Voting Integrity has prepared recommendations to assist voters and election administrators. The guidance was prepared with the assistance of the Brennan Center for Justice and addresses the use of electronic voting systems in the upcoming national elections. NCVI and the Brennan Center warn that the recent implementation of electronic voting systems will make ensuring that all votes are accurately counted a difficult and challenging task. It is estimated that 80% of all voters will use either Optical-Scan or direct recording electronic (DRE) voting systems during this years election. For more information, see EPIC's Page on Voting Privacy. (Oct.ober 30, 2006)

Joint House Committees Hold Hearing on E-voting: In a statement to the House Committees on Administration and Science, the National Committee for Voting Integrity recommended greater security for e-voting systems. NCVI said that the current review process for ensuring that e-voting systems count votes as cast is not working. The Election Assistance Commission has delayed implementation of a new federal process intended to replace the current system. For more information, see EPIC's Voting and Privacy page and the National Committee for Voting Integrity Web site. (July 20, 2006)

The Brennan Center Releases Voting Technology Report: The Brennan Center's report "The Machinery of Democracy Protecting Elections in an Electronic World," was a collaborative effort joined by EPIC's Project the National Committee for Voting Integrity that identified over 120 security threats; and evaluated countermeasures for repelling attacks. The study examined each of the three most commonly purchased electronic voting systems and makes recommendations on their use in public elections. For more information on voting systems, visit EPIC's Voting Privacy Page and National Committee for Voting Integrity (NCVI). (June 28, 2006)

Election Report Recommends Voter ID, Paper Trails: The Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, released a new report on the conduct of domestic elections. The Carter-Baker Commission recommended photo IDs for all voters, verifiable paper trails for electronic voting machines, and removing partisan political activity from the administration of elections. Voting reform groups favor the paper trail. But the photo ID requirement conflicts with many civil rights and voting rights laws. EPIC earlier opposed (pdf) Georgia's effort to require all voters to present photo ID to participate in public elections. See EPIC's page on Voting and Privacy. (September 20, 2005)

EPIC Testifies Before Election Assistance Commission: The U.S. Election Assistance Commission held its third and final public hearing in Denver, Colorado on its proposed Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. EPIC's statement (pdf) focused on the importance of election administration in creating reliable, secure, accessible, transparent, accurate, and auditable public elections. The Commission is nearing the end of a process begun last year, which is intended to replace how voting systems used in public elections are designed. (August 23, 2005)

EPIC Opposes Georgia Voting ID Requirement: In comments (pdf) to the Department of Justice, EPIC has opposed Georgia's proposal that would require government-issued photo ID to vote in a state or federal election. EPIC said that the Georgia voting photo identification law encroaches on privacy, would discourage voter turnout, and is inconsistent with the federal Help America Vote Act. Under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Georgia is required to receive Justice Department approval before making any changes to its voting laws. For more information, see EPIC's Voting and Privacy page and the National Committee for Voting Integrity Web site. (July 29, 2005)

Public Comment beings on Election Assistance Commission's Voting Standards Document: On June 29, the public comment period begins for the U.S. Election Assistance Commission's Draft Voting Standards, and will last for 90 days, ending at 5:00 PM on September 30, 2005. The Draft Standards were developed under the Help America Vote Act and are intended to replace current voting standards. (June 29, 2005)

Senate Explores Voting Technology, EPIC Voting Project Recommends Enhanced Standards: The National Committee for Voting Integrity has submitted comments to the Senate Rules Committee, which held a hearing on Voter Verification in the Federal Elections Process. NCVI said that current voting technology does not meet a standard that can assure voters that votes are recorded and counted as cast. NCVI, a project of EPIC, made recommendations to the Senate on ways to improve transparency, privacy and security of ballots. For more information, see EPIC's page on Voting and Privacy. (June 21)

EPIC Voting Project Urges Privacy Safeguards for Voter Registration Databases. The National Committee for Voting Integrity has submitted comments to the Election Assistance Commission on the proposed creation of centralized statewide voter registration databases. NCVI said that the registration systems must assure voter privacy by adhering to fair information practices, and allow voters to verify information, correct inaccurate information, and be assured that the information provided will not be used for non-voting related purposes. For more information, see EPIC's pages on Voting and Voter Registration Databases. (May 25)

EPIC Project the National Committee for Voting Integrity offers comments: NCVI offers comments to the Election Assistance Commission's Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) on its work to create electronic voting standards with the assistance of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). NCVI strongly encourages the TGDC to make greater use of the expertise and resources of NIST in developing any new voting technology standards. The TGDC will makes it recommendations to the EAC on voting technology standards soon. (March 9, 2005)

EPIC Comments on Voter Registration Problems. EPIC has responded to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission's request for comments on a state survey of voter registration in 2004. The comments point out transparency and privacy problems associated with voter registration administration during last year's election. For more information, see EPIC's new page on Statewide Centralized Voter Registration Databases. (March 1, 2005)

EAC 2004 Annual Report Released. The EAC's 2004 Annual report states the agency was established 10 months later than required under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) and was seriously under funded, had no offices, equipment nor staff. The total operating funds for fiscal year 2004 was only $1.2 million. (January 2005)

EPIC Files Comments on Use of Voter SSNs. In comments to the Social Security Administration, EPIC has urged the agency not to create a new routine use of the Social Security Number for state voter registration purposes. EPIC asked the agency not to implement this routine use until state election administrations agree not to require voters to present their Social Security cards in order to vote in federal elections. For more information, see the EPIC Voting and SSN Pages. (September 3, 2004)

Public Records Request Information from PA, NM, and TX Secretary of State. The information is provided by Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Texas in reply to public information request made by EPIC on the use of DRE voting technology. Legal research on the State of New Jersey election law. (June-October 2004)

Election Day resources available to help voters. The efforts of technologist and Election Protection workers have produced a support network that will assist voters on and before Election Day. The National Committee for Voting Integrity is providing easy to follow instructions on voting on DRE and Optical Scan Voting Systems. Voters can also find help by calling 1-866-OUR-VOTE to seek the advice or assistance of Election Protection efforts supported by the Lawyers Committee on Civil Rights, and People for the American Way. (October 20, 2004)

US Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to hold a hearing. The EAC will ask federal agencies to report on their Election Day procedures. The Commission will also review the state preparations for the November 2nd election; the status of State administration of provisional voting; and report on tools in place to monitor Election Day activities. (October 26, 2004)

EPIC Testifies on Voting Privacy The Election Assistance Commission Technical Guidelines Development Committee asked EPIC to offer testimony (pdf) on the impact that new voting technology and polling place practices has on the privacy rights of voters. The hearing was an opportunity for the committee charged with making recommendations on voluntary standards for election systems and voting technology. The committee is expected to make its recommendations to the full Election Assistance Commission board sometime next summer for adoption and implementation in 2006. (September 22, 2004)

Counties in the State of Florida Conduct Logic and Accuracy Test. Counties throughout the State of Florida have scheduled Logic and Accuracy Test of direct electronic recording (DRE) voting machines in preparation for the primary election scheduled for August 31, 2004. (August 10, 2004)

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Schedules Meeting on November Election. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission will review the Federal Voting Assistance Program Best Practices for Military and Overseas Voting, the EAC November Election Research Project, and the EAC National Poll Worker Initiative. The Commission will also review recommendations on the National Voter Registration Form and the HAVA College Program. The EAC will meet on August 10, 2004, from 10:00 AM until Noon at 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 (Metro Stop: Metro Center). (August 10, 2004)

The Election Assistance Commission makes public Election Day Tool Kit The Election Assistance Commission released its recommendations under the heading of Best Practices Tool Kit. The Tool Kit is designed to assist local and state election officials in implementing the best methods for addressing potential problems with voting technology. There recommendation on direct recording electronic (DRE) voting machines seems to be less detailed than other forms of voting technology addressed, which include: lever voting machines, optical scan voting systems, and punchcard voting machines. August 9, 2004

The National Academy of Sciences Holds Electronic Voting Workshop.Members of the National Committee for Voting Integrity, which include Dr. David Chaum, Dr. Aviel Rubin, Dr. David Dill are panelist for the two day workshop on Electronic Voting. The workshop covers the entire range of issues related to electronic voting from beginning to end, that is, from the point of capturing the voter's intent to assuring an accurate final tabulation of votes.The gathering is open to the public, but participation will be limited to the invited panel participants. The discussion will take place at the National Academies of Science Keck Center, Room 109, 500 5th Street, NW, Washington, DC. (July 13-14, 2004)

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission Chair's Statement On Terrorism and the November Election. EAC Chair DeForrest Soaries issued a statement rejecting any possible postponement or cancellation of the November 2, 2004 election due to a terrorist attack. (July 13, 2004)

The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) EAC Advisory Board and Standards Board met in Houston, TX. The EAC held a 2 days of public hearings in Houston Texas this week to allow its Board of Advisors and Standards Board to discuss the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) role and their organizational plans for the new agency. (June 28-29, 2004)

The House Committee on Science holds a hearing on Voting Technology Standards. The House Science Committee's Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards held a Hearing on Testing and Certification for Voting Equipment: How Can the Process Be Improved? Witnesses heard by the Committee included Congressman Rush Holt, Carolyn Coggins, Hratch G. Semerjian, Michael I. Shamos, and Thomas Wilkey .(June 24, 2004)

The House Committee on Rules and Administration to Hold EAC Oversight Hearing. Oversight. The Hearing will look at the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and Implementation of the Help America Vote Act and what is planned between now and November 2004. The Hearing will take place in room 1310 Longworth House Office Building at 11:00 AM. (June 17, 2004)

League of Women Voters Delegates Vote to Change the Group's Position on Paperless DREs. The League of Women voters convention held in Washington DC voted overwhelmingly to rescinded its support of paperless voting machines of endorsing paperless DRE voting machines to a neutral stand on all electronic voting technology. (June 14, 2004)

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Plans Chicago Hearing. On June 3, 2004, at 9:00 AM the U.S. Election Assistance Commission will meet at the Water Tower Campus of Loyola University in Chicago, IL to "Conduct a Public Hearing to Identify Best Practices, Problems and Transition Issues Associated with Optical Scan, Punch Card, and Lever Machine Voting Systems and the Success and Problems Identified with the Use of Provisional Voting". The panels that will be presented: Punch card Panel, Lever Machine Panel, Optical Scan Panel, and Provisional Vote Panel.

CANCELLEDThe House Committee on Government Reform's Subcommittee on Technology Hearing. On May 12, 2004, the hearing "The Science of Electronic Voting Machine Technology: Accuracy, Reliability, and Security" was held in Room 2247 of the Rayburn House Office Building.

The State of California Announced that it is Decertifying Diebold TSx Voting Machine. California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley made public the decision by the State of California to ban the use in the November Election of any voting system that does not provided a paper ballot. (April 30, 2004)

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission Held Its First Public Meeting. On March 23, 2004, DeForest Soaries, Jr., Chairman, Vice Chair Commissioner Gracia M. Hillman, Commissioner Paul S. DeGregorio and Commissioner Raymundo Martinez III, held their first official public meeting.

CA Audit Finds Diebold Used Uncertified Software. An audit of Diebold Election Systems voting machines in California has revealed that the company installed uncertified software in all 17 counties that use its electronic voting equipment. Diebold admitted wrongdoing at a meeting of the state's Voting Systems Panel and said it was making changes to its procedures for upgrading its systems. The Voting Systems Panel is continuing to investigate whether or not Diebold will be sanctioned for violating state election code.

Ohio Suspends Electronic Voting Machine Use. Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell has halted the use of electronic voting machines in the state until security weaknesses revealed in two state-commissioned studies are resolved. A technical analysis of four different electronic voting systems used in the state and a report of findings from on-sight inspection of each vendor's security procedures revealed significant flaws. As a result, Blackwell has suspended use of the Diebold, ES&S, Hart, and Sequoia systems and will seek an extension of federally mandated Help America Vote Act (HAVA) deadlines in order to provide system manufacturers time to correct deficiencies. (December 4, 2003)

California to Require Paper Printouts for Electronic Voting. California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley announced (pdf) that the state will require "Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails" for all touch screen voting machines by 2006. The proposal is strongly favored by technology experts, including members of the National Committee for Voting Integrity. (November 21, 2003)

New Voting Group Launched. The National Committee for Voting Integrity held a press conference in Washington, DC to urge Presidential candidates to address the integrity of electronic voting systems. The new organization, which consists of a host of voting experts from the fields of technology, academia, politics, and media, has formed to promote voter-verified balloting and to preserve privacy protections for elections in the United States. (November 21, 2003)

Library of Congress Releases Report on Electronic Voting Machines. The Congressional Research Service
of the Library of Congress has presented to Congress a report entitled, " Election Reform and Electronic Voting Sytems (DRE's): Analysis of Security Issues." The report analyzed the controversy surrounding DRE's but did not take a position on how to resolve it. The report did, however, state that "at least some current DRE's cleary exhibit security vulnerabilities."

Diebold Faces Lawsuit in Battle with Students. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society have announced they will file a lawsuit requesting a temporary restraining order against Diebold. The lawsuit is a response to Diebold's series of cease-and-desist orders, which the company has sent out to force websites to take down leaked company memos.

Students Battle Diebold Over Memos. Members of the Swarthmore Coalition for the Digital Commons, a student organization at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania are taking heat from Diebold Election Systems for hosting web pages linked to thousands of leaked Diebold memos that detail flaws in the company's voting machine software. The company claims posting such information is a violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and has sent out cease-and-desist letters to force websites and ISP's to take down the memos, which Swarthmore has complied with. However, the students have continued to protest, claiming the company is suppressing free speech. (November 2, 2003)

Maryland Legislators Call for Audit of Study. Maryland state legislators Sen. Paula C. Hollinger (D-Baltimore County) and Del. Sheila Ellis Hixson (D-Montgomery) have sent a letter to the director of the Maryland Department of Legislative Services questioning the impartiality of Science Application International Corp.'s report on Diebold voting machines and requesting that the agency examine the process used to select the firm to conduct the review of the Diebold system. Meanwhile, a new citizen organization, the Campaign for Verifiable Voting in Maryland, has launched a campaign to combat the implementation of Diebold voting machines in the state. (October 21, 2003)

SAIC Releases Study on Voting Machines. Science Application International Corp. has issued a report on Diebold voting machines that was commissioned by the state of Maryland. The report found multiple vulnerabilities in the system, but also stated that the security flaws could be remedied with proper safeguards . As a result, Maryland has gone ahead with its plans to purchase and implement the Diebold voting system statewide. (September 23, 2003)

Diebold Memo Admits Knowledge of Vulnerabilities. Journalists have obtained copies of internal mail from Diebold principal engineer R&D Ken Clark - then working for Global Election Systems before Diebold took the company over - who confirms the existence of security flaws in the voting system's software. (September. 12, 2003)

Maryland Gov. Commissions Review of Diebold Systems. Maryland Governor Robert L. Erlich Jr., whose state had agreed to purchase $55.6 million of Diebold voting machines, has arranged for an independent review of the voting system by Science Application International Corp. of San Diego. The review comes on the heels of a report by a Johns Hopkins computer scientist that the Diebold system has serious security flaws. (August 7, 2003)

Report Criticizes Deibold Voting System. Computer Scientists from Johns Hopkins and Rice Universities released a study of the source code purported to be part of Diebold Election System's Accu-Vote TS voting software. They found "significant and wide reaching security vulnerabilities," including the ability of voters to illegally cast multiple ballots, view partial election results, and prematurely terminate elections, as well as lack of protection of voting info when traveling over network connections. (July, 2003)

Congressman Promotes "Voter Confidence" Bill. Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ) has introduced the "Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003" (HR 2239), which would require states to use election equipment that provides a voter-verified permanent paper record. The bill is currently being debated in the Committee on House Administration. (May 22, 2003)